Stalinist's Vs anarchists in the Spanish civil war [Archive]

Ismail

26th November 2009, 12:00

You mean the anarchists who were actually fighting?Both the CNT and FAI did fight. To say that the CNT didn't fight is odd, considering that there were militia in Madrid, Toledo, Morrow noted of CNT members on the Aragón front, Borkenau notes of the CNT in Barcelona (that they fought heroically), Malinovsky praised the efforts of the Anarchists at Jarama, etc. My point was that the CNT were generally more cooperative with the Popular Front, whereas the FAI were generally not.

The Aragón front did receive arms (as much as it could within the limits of "Does Aragón deserve some more precious guns?"), but it was also seen as an inactive front, as Orwell noted, and it isn't like there was much in the way of available Soviet arms, and the ability to actually get them into Spain was an epic task in of itself. Describe to me the allegedly betrayed arms agreement.

As for the PCE smashing the Anarchists in Aragón, Líster noted in his memoirs (and it is talked about in Bolloten's The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution, pp. 243-4, 526-7) that Prieto had essentially forced Líster to attack the Council, and later feigned outrage in an attempt to undermine the Communists and to incite infighting within the leftist ranks.

Landis notes in Spain! The Unfinished Revolution (p. 360):

At 11 p.m. on August 10, Líster was called to the telephone. It was General Pozas and he limited his remarks to “Mañana sale eso!” But Líster didn't leave it at that. He answered clearly and distinctly: “My General, you can communicate to the Minister of Defense that all measures have been taken. The artillery is emplaced and the tanks and infantry are in position: if anything moves it will be crushed.” General Pozas used Líster's brief pause to say, “Bueno, bueno, good luck,” and hung up.

Enrique Líster, aware that since the communications system was in Anarchist hands, and that they would undoubtedly get the message, had, himself, killed two birds with one stone. He had announced who was really responsible for what was about to happen, and had simultaneously drawn a line under the kind of psychological warfare he had been practising for the last few days. . . . For the 11th Division had not been idle. Indeed troops had been maneuvering on the outskirts of Caspe; tanks had rolled through the streets with cannons pointing ominously, and motorized infantry had passed back and froth along the highways.

Jazzratt

26th November 2009, 12:40

You blame us for relying on our arms supply? what ever happend to DIY and self-organisation? fuck comprimise, fuck unity but still give us arms? Hardly our fault.

You say "us" as if you had anything to do with going back on an arms agreement decades before you were born. Regardless I can say that it probably wasn't the anarchists that had a "fuck unity" attitude given that they weren't the ones to renege on a deal made in good faith. :rolleyes:

The Feral Underclass

26th November 2009, 13:21

Well the vast majority obviously decided not to restrict us, i seriously dont know why you still suggest such a proposition.

I'm not really suggesting it. I made a comment to melbicimni and now that quote has been taken and used as some evidence of my nefarious scheme to make the board anarchist only. :rolleyes:

You blame us for relying on our arms supply?I was rather referring to the order for anarchists and workers militias to disarm, which was forcibly enacted by the Stalinist government. Piles of weaponry were left unused while militias at the front (not just anarchist ones) were without arms and facing an offensive.

This was quickly followed up by the abolishment of the workers supply committees, which saw people in Barcelona go starving due to the hoarding of food (to inflate prices), despite their being enough food to go around.

what ever happend to DIY and self-organisation?There was a popular front. They were all supposed to be on the same side. In fact, anarchists even joined the fucking central government. That was our mistake.

fuck comprimise, fuck unity but still give us arms? Hardly our fault.You're actually proving my point. It was the collaboration with the state and the naive trust that the central government would assist in the arming of workers militia's in the collectives that lead to the anarchists being forcibly disarmed, the collectives being smashed and ultimately the establishment of fascism in Spain. Stalin clearly "believed that above all else "socialism" in the USSR had to be defended. The interests of the European (and indeed the world) working class had to take second place to the strategic interests of the ruling bureaucracy in Russia."

Our lesson from that is: Don't trust Stalinist's and don't participate in the state.

The Feral Underclass

26th November 2009, 13:41

Both the CNT and FAI did fight. To say that the CNT didn't fight is odd, considering that there were militia in Madrid, Toledo, Morrow noted of CNT members on the Aragón front, Borkenau notes of the CNT in Barcelona (that they fought heroically), Malinovsky praised the efforts of the Anarchists at Jarama, etc. My point was that the CNT were generally more cooperative with the Popular Front, whereas the FAI were generally not.

My snipe was really at their co-operation with the state. Obviously they fought.

It should be noted that the FAI were right to be belligerent towards the popular front. It was their demise.

The Aragón front did receive arms (as much as it could within the limits of "Does Aragón deserve some more precious guns?")After the forcible disarming of the anarchist and workers militias, Orwell notes in Homage To Catalonia: "the Anarchists were well aware that even if they surrendered their arms, the PSUC would retain theirs, and this is in fact what happened after the fighting was over. Meanwhile actually visible on the streets, there were quantities of arms which would have been very welcome at the front, but which were being retained for the 'non-political' police forces in the rear". (Homage To Catalonia p.151).

but it was also seen as an inactive frontYet it was the Aragon offensive that was the decisive victory for the fascists...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragon_Offensive

and it isn't like there was much in the way of available Soviet arms, and the ability to actually get them into Spain was an epic task in of itself. There were plenty of arms, this is just a bear-faced lie!

Describe to me the allegedly betrayed arms agreement.The forcible disarming of the workers militas.

As for the PCE smashing the Anarchists in Aragón, Líster noted in his memoirs (and it is talked about in Bolloten's The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution, pp. 243-4, 526-7) that Prieto had essentially forced Líster to attack the Council, and later feigned outrage in an attempt to undermine the Communists and to incite infighting within the leftist ranks.Your argument amounts to, "Well Prieto told him to do it"...

Irrespective of who gave the order, the fact is the the Stalinist army, under Lister's control entered the Aragon collectives and smashed them, weakening the front and giving Franco an advantage that allowed him to win the war.

To be clear: not only did the Stalinist government forcibly disarm anarchists and workers militias, they smashed worker expression of control in the collectives (which were in full and functional operation), and inadvertently allowed Franco to win the civil war.

If you people want to defend that tradition, then so be it. But you'll have to deal with the consequences of it.

Andropov

26th November 2009, 15:28

The guts of the arguement is if "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate tendency of the left.
Now this debate has boiled down to why the USSR back tracked on agreements with Anarchists in Spain.
Such as why arms shipments and the like were renegaded upon.
But the very inferance that Anarchists here expected the USSR to provide Spanish Anarchists with weaponry even though it was led by Marxist-Leninists surely demonstrates that Anarchists here recognise that the USSR was some legitimate branch of Leftist ideology.
Surely this proves our point that "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate branch of Leftist ideology.
If the USSR was indeed crypto-facist, state capitalst, anti-worker buerocratic bourgeois then why would Anarchists appeal to aid from the USSR?
Why not appeal to the Liberal Western Democracys which Anarchists here deem as more progressive than the USSR?
Surely a paradox?

The Feral Underclass

26th November 2009, 16:02

The guts of the arguement is if "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate tendency of the left.

"Stalinism" is legitimate in so far as it appeals to left-wing politics, so you can easily argue it's a tendency of the left. That's not really what this debate is about. The debate is whether RevLeft should encourage the tendency or whether it should be considered an opposing ideology.

Now this debate has boiled down to why the USSR back tracked on agreements with Anarchists in Spain.

Again, this isn't what the debate is about. I'm referring to the Stalinist PCE, which was backed by the USSR. There was never any direct dialogue between anarchists and the USSR.

Such as why arms shipments and the like were renegaded upon.
But the very inferance that Anarchists here expected the USSR to provide Spanish Anarchists with weaponry even though it was led by Marxist-Leninists surely demonstrates that Anarchists here recognise that the USSR was some legitimate branch of Leftist ideology.

I'm not referring to any shipments of arms that the USSR didn't give to the popular government. I'm talking specifically about how Stalinist's in Spain dealt with the popular front alliance, of which anarchists were part.

If the USSR was indeed crypto-facist, state capitalst, anti-worker buerocratic bourgeois then why would Anarchists appeal to aid from the USSR?

I've seen no documents where anarchists appealed for aid from the USSR. I think you've made an assumption about the history of this.

The anarchists were part of a popular front government, plus they were part of the workers militias fighting against the nationalists and fascists. The arms that the USSR donated to the popular front were thought to be intended for the workers militias. What you find is the Stalinist PCE (Spanish Communist Party), backed by Russia, really just wanted wanted political power for themselves and to achieve this they smashed actual worker expression of democracy and undermine thed popular front.

While most people believe that arms were going to be used to defend the fronts against fascism, the PCE and Stalin were actually arming a state army and police force in order to crush the workers militias, first by forcibly disarming them and then using tanks to smash the collectives.

Why not appeal to the Liberal Western Democracys which Anarchists here deem as more progressive than the USSR?

It wasn't a question of "appealing" to liberal democracies, it was a question of attempting to defend the revolution, which the workers, including anarchists, believed Russia was supporting. What it was actually supporting was the emergence of a state leadership who could reign in the workers militias and smash worker democracy...Which is exactly what happened.

Stranger Than Paradise

26th November 2009, 16:04

No because the Anarchists wanted arms to be given to the militias from the USSR isn't the important fact. The important bit is the fact they didn't give them arms.

Andropov

26th November 2009, 16:24

"Stalinism" is legitimate in so far as it appeals to left-wing politics, so you can easily argue it's a tendency of the left. That's not really what this debate is about. The debate is whether RevLeft should encourage the tendency or whether it should be considered an opposing ideology.
No its not.
Thats a deliberate distortion of the arguement.
Its whether "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate tendency of the Left to be tolerated or removed.

Again, this isn't what the debate is about. I'm referring to the Stalinist PCE, which was backed by the USSR. There was never any direct dialogue between anarchists and the USSR.
Sorry my post wasnt solely directed at you.
Did an Anarchist not mention the USSR renaging on an Arms agreement with Spanish Anarchists?

I'm not referring to any shipments of arms that the USSR didn't give to the popular government. I'm talking specifically about how Stalinist's in Spain dealt with the popular front alliance, of which anarchists were part.
Yet again TAT there is more than you in this debate.
I was clearly refering to the point brought up earlier by another Anarchist.

I've seen no documents where anarchists appealed for aid from the USSR. I think you've made an assumption about the history of this.
So you can confirm Anarchists never appealed for aid from the USSR, either directly or through a proxy such as the Comintern?

The anarchists were part of a popular front government, plus they were part of the workers militias fighting against the nationalists and fascists. The arms that the USSR donated to the popular front were thought to be intended for the workers militias. What you find is the Stalinist PCE (Spanish Communist Party), backed by Russia, really just wanted wanted political power for themselves and to achieve this they smashed actual worker expression of democracy and undermine thed popular front.
Yes they wanted to centralise power in the Comintern but as for wanting to smash "actual worker expression" is where we diverge.

While most people believe that arms were going to be used to defend the fronts against fascism, the PCE and Stalin were actually arming a state army and police force in order to crush the workers militias, first by forcibly disarming them and then using tanks to smash the collectives.
So Soviet Arms were not used on the fronts?

It wasn't a question of "appealing" to liberal democracies, it was a question of attempting to defend the revolution, which the workers, including anarchists, believed Russia was supporting.
Yes of course its a legitimate question why appeal to the USSR or Liberal Western Democracys to defend the Revolution? Why seek aid from the USSR when in your own Anarchist perspective it is less progressive than Liberal Western Democracys?

What it was actually supporting was the emergence of a state leadership who could reign in the workers militias and smash worker democracy...Which is exactly what happened.
It was attempting to centralise power in the comintern.

The Feral Underclass

26th November 2009, 17:11

No its not.
Thats a deliberate distortion of the arguement.
Its whether "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate tendency of the Left to be tolerated or removed.

Who said that Stalinism was not a legitimate tendency of the left? Where is this debate, because as someone who's been part of it, I don't know where it is. As far as I was aware this debate was initially whether Stalinist's should be treated differently to other tendencies or whether they should be restricted, thus turning the debate on whether Stalinism should be encouraged (as restricting them would indicate quite clearly that it shouldn't).

Did an Anarchist not mention the USSR renaging on an Arms agreement with Spanish Anarchists?

Yes, that was me. I was talking specifically about the forced disarming of the workers militias. Do you defend that decision?

Yet again TAT there is more than you in this debate.
I was clearly refering to the point brought up earlier by another Anarchist.

It still doesn't make it true that anarchists had a direct dialogue with the USSR, because they didn't.

So you can confirm Anarchists never appealed for aid from the USSR, either directly or through a proxy such as the Comintern?

Yes, if you like.

Yes they wanted to centralise power in the Comintern but as for wanting to smash "actual worker expression" is where we diverge.

So the collectivisation of land, the means of production and of administration into the direct hands of workers is not "actual worker expression"?

The fact is that the workers and peasants in the Aragon collective had done this. They had formed their own production and distribution systems based on need, and these methods were controlled by workers councils...And then Lister, under the command of the PCE, rolled in with tanks and smashed them.

If you "diverge" from the opinion that Stalinist's smashed actual worker expression then you need to prove/explain that neither a) the workers collectives in Aragon were the expression of workers democracy and control or b) that Lister didn't actually go in with tanks and smash them.

Which is it?

So Soviet Arms were not used on the fronts?

Most probably.

Yes of course its a legitimate question why appeal to the USSR or Liberal Western Democracys to defend the Revolution? Why seek aid from the USSR when in your own Anarchist perspective it is less progressive than Liberal Western Democracys?

Because as you yourself have said, the PCE wanted to "centralise power in the comintern". That's why they appealed to the USSR instead of liberal democracies one would imagine.

Why did the anarchists expect the PCE to arm the workers militias?..Erm, because they were part of the popular front set up to fight and defend against fascism and that's what the anarchists were doing? They were part of the popular government, it was the job of the popular government to fight and defend against fascism. The point of the arms were surely supposed to be to that end. Obviously not, as the PCE had different aspirations. They couldn't arm the anarchists because the anarchists called for revolution, so instead they disarmed them and then attacked them, weakening the Aragon front and allowing Franco to win.

It was attempting to centralise power in the comintern.

Precisely. That's the problem.

Andropov

26th November 2009, 18:15

Who said that Stalinism was not a legitimate tendency of the left?
So "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate tendency of the left?

As far as I was aware this debate was initially whether Stalinist's should be treated differently to other tendencies or whether they should be restricted, thus turning the debate on whether Stalinism should be encouraged (as restricting them would indicate quite clearly that it shouldn't).
Not at all, thats a complete distortion.
By not banning a tendency it is not enouraging it, thats just bonkers.
I dont call for the banning of Anarchists or Trots, does that mean I encourage those tendencys?
Of course not, but I recognise them as being legitimate tendencys within Revleft.

Yes, that was me. I was talking specifically about the forced disarming of the workers militias. Do you defend that decision?
Yes.

It still doesn't make it true that anarchists had a direct dialogue with the USSR, because they didn't.
Did they have an in-direct dialogue with the USSR?

Yes, if you like.
Interesting.

So the collectivisation of land, the means of production and of administration into the direct hands of workers is not "actual worker expression"?The fact is that the workers and peasants in the Aragon collective had done this. They had formed their own production and distribution systems based on need, and these methods were controlled by workers councils...And then Lister, under the command of the PCE, rolled in with tanks and smashed them.
I see that diverging resources from a total war effort to collectivisation as politically naive. Within the context of Spain power should have been consolidated and centralised which is what the PCE set about doing, so in the larger material context the PCE were indeed working to actual worker expression by the more rational consolidation of worker power in a centralised PCE.

If you "diverge" from the opinion that Stalinist's smashed actual worker expression then you need to prove/explain that neither a) the workers collectives in Aragon were the expression of workers democracy and control or b) that Lister didn't actually go in with tanks and smash them.
Which is it?
Read the above.

Most probably.
It was a simple question, were Soviet Arms used on the fronts yes or no?

Because as you yourself have said, the PCE wanted to "centralise power in the comintern". That's why they appealed to the USSR instead of liberal democracies one would imagine.
Thats not answering my question.
Why didnt Anarchists appeal to the Western Liberal Democacys for aid as they were more progressive according to Anarchists?

Why did the anarchists expect the PCE to arm the workers militias?..Erm, because they were part of the popular front set up to fight and defend against fascism and that's what the anarchists were doing?
Not effectively.

They were part of the popular government, it was the job of the popular government to fight and defend against fascism.
The aim of the PCE was not to merely defeat facism but to install a sustainable and effective worker state.

The point of the arms were surely supposed to be to that end.
Yet again ignoring the wider context.

Obviously not, as the PCE had different aspirations. They couldn't arm the anarchists because the anarchists called for revolution, so instead they disarmed them and then attacked them, weakening the Aragon front and allowing Franco to win.
No, the failures of the Republican side was not down to the PCE's attempted centralisation it was down to the politically immaturity of their militias organisation. If the PCE had centralised power earlier and consolidated Republican power the result in Spain would be very different.

Precisely. That's the problem.
You are ignoring the wider context.

Ismail

26th November 2009, 18:59

After the forcible disarming of the anarchist and workers militias, Orwell notes in Homage To Catalonia: "the Anarchists were well aware that even if they surrendered their arms, the PSUC would retain theirs, and this is in fact what happened after the fighting was over. Meanwhile actually visible on the streets, there were quantities of arms which would have been very welcome at the front, but which were being retained for the 'non-political' police forces in the rear". (Homage To Catalonia p.151).According to Borkenau (The Spanish Cockpit, p. 91), the Anarchists also "disarmed" POUM units. The main charge of disarmament is due to the opposition to the concept of replacing the militias with the People's Army.

There were plenty of arms, this is just a bear-faced lie!Landis notes the amount of arms the Republic had in March, 1938 against the Fascists (p. 373) when discussing Republican power vis-à-vis the Nationalists and I'd be glad to list more examples Landis notes throughout the period of 1937-39:

For the Spanish Republic there were but sixty available planes. At best, there was but an equal number of tanks. If a hundred guns of all calibers remained on the eastern front after the attrition of Teruel, their location was not known to the commanders of the Republican armies.

Facing four-fifths of the above three Army Corps of the Fascist-Military was a single Republican Army Corps of the line, the 12th, composed primarily of Anarchist units.

Reserves in the area of the 12th Corps consisted of nine brigades, garrisoned, so to speak, almost fifty kilometers to the rear. The only other effective forces—and this will forever be a cause for deep conjecture—were the 11th and 15th International Brigades of the 35th Division of the 5th Army. In the first three days of decisive battle this meager force of less than 35,000 men were to face alone the motorized onslaught of well over 150,000 superbly trained and well equipped troops.
Your argument amounts to, "Well Prieto told him to do it"...

Irrespective of who gave the order, the fact is the the Stalinist army, under Lister's control entered the Aragon collectives and smashed them, weakening the front and giving Franco an advantage that allowed him to win the war.Well there are two things one should know then:

1. Prieto was his superior, he had to do it. It was an order.
2. If you don't like Prieto (does anyone?) the PCE led the effort to dislodge him later on, as Landis notes (p. 376):

In joint action with the P.S.U.C. and with the J.S.U., it called upon the people—the masses, the armed forces—to save the Republic. The Socialist Party was persuaded, along with the U.G.T. and the C.N.T., to join in organizing a great demonstration, which took to the streets of Barcelona on March 16. A quarter of a million people marched to the Pedralba Palace, where the Government of Spain was now situated. They demanded that resistance be continued, and that those ministers who had lost faith in the struggle be replaced. Their banners read: “Down with the Treacherous Ministers!” and “Down with the Minister of National Defense!” Indalecio Prieto, the man who had occupied and rendered useless the most vital post of his country's government during one of its darkest hours, was forced from his office on April 5, 1938.
To be clear: not only did the Stalinist government forcibly disarm anarchists and workers militias, they smashed worker expression of control in the collectives (which were in full and functional operation), and inadvertently allowed Franco to win the civil war.Landis (pp. 326-7, 329-30):

Within two weeks of the total application of Libertarian Communism in Aragón, collectivized businesses became vacuums of empty stores and warehouses, creating a serious supply problems. The textile industry, the produce industry and in general, all light industry in Catalonia, also collectivized by the Anarchists, refused to accept the vouchers and other paper money given out by the “Committees” in Aragón. They demanded that they be paid in the coin of the Republic.

In reply the Committees of Aragón threatened the National Committee of the C.N.T. with cutting off the electric power that serviced the greater part of the industries of Catalonia, plus the central electrical system itself, if clothes and supplies were not sent to the “liberated areas.”

In reply to the gravity of this threat the National Committee of the C.N.T. ordered the Military Chief of the Anarchist forces in Aragón to execute the leaders of the Committees if they persisted in their attitude.

While the contradictions within the F.A.I./C.N.T. leadership grew ever sharper, the dominion which they continued to exercise over the peasantry of Aragón and Catalonia presented grave consequences for the war as a whole. Economically, these areas which had held such a wonderful potential for the Republic, were fast becoming wastelands. Politically, tens of thousands of peasants were losing all interest in the war; some had been actually forced into minor revolts against their persecutors.

[....]

Deprecating the absolutely desperate war needs of the country, the F.A.I. did little or nothing to create a meaningful war industry. The immense possibilities existing in this area were almost totally disavowed or ignored. One is reminded of the Chinese 8th Route Army and its “war industry” located in the caves of Yenan, where thousands of rifles were manufactured almost by hand during China's long struggle against the Japanese and the Kuomintang. One is reminded too of the “arms industry” of the early Viet Minh located in the jungles of Vietnam, and producing excellent weapons with nothing but the will and the heart and the patience of a people intent on winning their fight against imperialism.

The industrial might of Catalonia, with a metallurgical and chemical industry equal to that of some of the most advanced countries, was sufficient to have provided all the small arms—rifles, machine guns, mortars and cartridges, plus all manner of artillery shells, that the Republic needed.

The Anarchists, who for the first critical year of the war, controlled this industry, and in effect sabotaged its potential for the war, will forever share the guilt along with the capitulationists and the defeatists, for the final Franco victory.

D. Santillán boasts that at the end of three months they were producing approximately 4,000 shells per month. This is at less than 150 per day; less than the total potential of any medium sized machine shop. He also boasts of 1,000 kilos of T.N.T. being produced per day, after one year, and 600,000 fuses for shells and grenades during that year. And this was done, he writes, with approximately 150,000 workers in the war industry. If his production figures reveal nothing more than the total waste of manpower here, one will have some idea of the tragedy of the Spanish Republic. Where were the rifles and the small arms so desperately needed? There is no mention anywhere of this kind of production in Catalonia. Any applied statistics will show that the zone was capable of producing these weapons in the tens, if not in the hundreds of thousands. But this was not done, so that in the end, when Catalonia fell, Álvarez del Vayo could say that the remnants of the Peoples Army in its retreat across the French frontier, had but 30,000 rifles to defend itself against a Franco army—in Catalonia alone—of over 350,000 men inclusive of five complete Italian divisions.

The Feral Underclass

26th November 2009, 22:09

So "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate tendency of the left?

Was my answer not clear?

Not at all, thats a complete distortion.What, precisely, am I distorting? I summarised the key points of this threads debates, you are more than welcome to go back through it and check.

By not banning a tendency it is not enouraging it, thats just bonkers.Actually, I was referring to restriction. I think forcing members to post only in one specific forum rather than have free reign over the whole board is an act of discouragement. I'm not sure how else you can characterise it...

Of course not, but I recognise them as being legitimate tendencys within Revleft.Can you get to your point quicker please...

Yes.Then you have proven my basic point that Stalinist's are anti-working class.

Did they have an in-direct dialogue with the USSR?How can you have an indirect dialogue?

I see that diverging resources from a total war effort to collectivisation as politically naive.Then what was the "total war effort" if it was not arming militias defending a front in the civil war?

Within the context of Spain power should have been consolidated and centralised which is what the PCE set about doing, so in the larger material context the PCE were indeed working to actual worker expression by the more rational consolidation of worker power in a centralised PCE.How is smashing workers councils that control production and distribution, and then disarming workers militias, actual workers expression of control? What you're arguing is that the working class taking control directly and organising for the benefit of themselves, in councils and collectives, is not working class expression of power. I can't see how that's "rational" in any way?

Please explain to me how a centralised state mechanism controlling the working class is more of an expression of working class control than the workers controlling the means of production and distribution directly?

It was a simple question, were Soviet Arms used on the fronts yes or no?Yes, most probably.

Thats not answering my question.
Why didnt Anarchists appeal to the Western Liberal Democacys for aid as they were more progressive according to Anarchists?Firstly, I've never seen any anarchist argue that liberal democracies are "more" progressive, so your question is based on a false assumption. Anarchists don't think liberal democracies are progressive, that's precisely why we call for their destruction. So to answer you question, they didn't "appeal" to them because they weren't prepared to negotiate with capitalists. But that's irrelevant anyway, no liberal democracy was going to arm an anarchist revolution.

Not effectively.It's hard to be effective when you've been killed. The PCE should have thought about that before they sent tanks in.

The aim of the PCE was not to merely defeat facism but to install a sustainable and effective worker state.There was no need for a workers state. The Aragon and Catalonian collectives were examples of workers power outside of centralised political authority. There was no need to form a centralised government. The workers were doing it themselves and adequately defending themselves from Franco, until Lister murdered them all.

Yet again ignoring the wider context.What is this wider context?

No, the failures of the Republican side was not down to the PCE's attempted centralisation it was down to the politically immaturity of their militias organisation. If the PCE had centralised power earlier and consolidated Republican power the result in Spain would be very different.I'm afraid you can't deny historical fact. It is a fact that Lister smashed the Aragon collectives and disarmed the militias. It is a fact that this weakened the Aragon front and it is a fact that the Aragon offensive was the decisive victory that brought Franco to power.

You can try and confound this discussion with your ideological line, but facts are facts. Read a book on the subject.

You are ignoring the wider context.You keep saying that, but you've consistently ignored historical fact throughout this little discussion.

The Feral Underclass

26th November 2009, 22:32

According to Borkenau (The Spanish Cockpit, p. 91), the Anarchists also "disarmed" POUM units. The main charge of disarmament is due to the opposition to the concept of replacing the militias with the People's Army.

You're attempting to evade my argument by employing Tu quoque. We're not discussing whether anarchists disarmed the POUM, nor am I making a defence of it. We're talking about the PCE/PSOE disarming the workers militias, smashing the collectives thus weakening the Aragon front and allowing Franco to win.

Landis notes the amount of arms the Republic had in March, 1938 against the Fascists (p. 373) when discussing Republican power vis-à-vis the Nationalists and I'd be glad to list more examples Landis notes throughout the period of 1937-39If I was to accept that there was a weapons shortage, how does this relate to the wider discussion about the conduct of the Stalinist government? A discussion that you are totally evading. You haven't even responded to the point about the Aragon offensive, although ironically you keep quoting Landis who fought in the battle of Aragon and Teruel.

You're confounding this debate and focusing on the most redundant aspect of it. I'll happily concede that there was an arms shortage, but that does not address the more fundamental fact that the Stalinist government forcibly disarmed the workers militias and smashed the workers collectives

1. Prieto was his superior, he had to do it. It was an order.The PCE and the PSOE were in an alliance. As far as I'm concerned they're one and the same thing. But in any case, whether Prieto gave the order or not is irrelevant, the motivation was to smash the working class and consolidate state power.

If Lister or the PCE had such an issue with it, they could have broken off the alliance and refused. Your argument is weak if you think you can justify the actions of the PCE by blaming a bureaucrat in the PSOE. It's pathetic.

---

On a side note and in response to the Landis quote. I am not, nor would I try and claim that the anarchists during the Spanish civil war were perfect. That's clearly was not the case, and people don't need to read Landis to know that. But irrespective of this fact and for all their flaws and failures, the anarchists were part of real working class democracy, called for and attempted to defend working class gains and the social revolution. The Stalinist's destroyed that, violently.

So lets keep focus on the real debate here, rather than your evasive distractions. It's not the anarchist failures or flaws we're discussing, it's the Stalinist betrayal and bloody repression of the working class movement in Spain.

syndicat

26th November 2009, 23:28

In regard to the issue of the war industry in Catalonia, the workers of the CNT created over 200 munitions factories in the early weeks of the war. De Santillan's figures about output may not be comprehensive.

But the problem was lack of resources. In September Luis Companys and Durruti visited with Largo Caballero to get assurances that portions of the gold reserves would be made available for the war industries in Catalonia. Instead, at the insistence of the Communist Party, 70 percent of the gold reserves were shipped to Russia. This was a betrayal of the war industry in Catalonia and a betrayal of the promises made to Companys and Durruti (representing the CNT militia).

It was a total disaster for the war effort. As soon as word got out around the world that 70 percent of Spain's gold reserves had been shipped to Moscow, the Spanish currency lost 50 percent of its value on world currency markets. This means that any equipment, supplies or weapons purchased on the world market would cost twice as much.

Moreover, it was not in the interest of the Stalin regime to have a native war industry developed in Catalonia. Stalin viewed the sale of arms to the Spanish Republic as a business proposition. Gerald Howson, in "Arms for Spain," documents all the shipments of arms from the USSR to Spain. He shows how the USSR cheated the Spanish Republic right and left. They often didn't send what was ordered but dumped a lot of used junk. Russia was right then in the process of re-equipping its armed forces. Thus the constant cheating of the Spanish Republic as well as the destruction of the value of the currency by looting the gold reserves had a great deal to do with why there ended up being shortages of weapons, aircraft and so on.

An example of the failure to develop a native war industry is the failure to develop an indigenous fighter aircraft. At the start of the war the Hispano-Suiza aircraft engine plant in Guadalajara was in the anti-fascist zone. This made high performance aircraft engines. This could have been the basis for a native fighter production but this didn't happen...due to the way in which the Republican government controlled and allocated its funds. The minister of finance in the first months of the war was Negrin who was close to the Communists. It was Negrin who made the decision to send the gold to Moscow. Negrin, with Communist support, became head of the government after May 1937.

I disagree with Anarchist Tension about whether there was a need for a unified command and goverance system. In August revolutionaries within the CNT, such as Garcia Oliver and Durruti and Mera, began to recognize the weaknesses of the then existing militia system. They were also concerned to counter the Communist Party's proposal for rebuilding a conventional hierarchical army which would be controlled by party leaders thru the state. The problem of the militia system wasn't that it was controlled by the working class organizations but that it was uncoordinated due to separate party and union militias. What was needed was a single unified militia.

Thus at the CNT's national conference Sept 3 1936 they proposed, and the organization agreed, to a proposal to the UGT and its Left socialist leaders to replace the existing party and union militias with a unified people's militia with a unified command. They also proposed the creation of a proletarian government...a national defense council...to replace the central Republican government. This council would be controlled jointly by the CNT and UGT. The middle class Republican and Basque Nationalist parties would be excluded. This Council would be elected by, and accountable to, a National Workers Congress that would replace the parliament. (This council proposal is described in Los anarquistas y el poder by Cesar Lorenzo.) This council proposal is the origin of the Friends of Durruti Group's proposal for a revolutionary council in 1937.

The various units of the army and police would be controlled by joint committees, made up of delegates elected by rank and file militia members (like in the existing war committees of the CNT militia), plus representatives of the UGT and CNT unions. Their concern was that the organized working class have control over the armed forces of the country...or else those armed forces would end up being used by some alien class power (as ultimately happened). This national defense council proposal didn't happen due to it being veto'd by the Left socialist leadership of the UGT. They were under great pressure from the Soviet ambassador to reject it. He told Largo Caballero the CNT proposal would "destroy the international legitimacy of the Spanish Republic." As if the capitalist powers would ever provide support for a country where the working class had expropriated the capitalists!

27th November 2009, 04:03

In regard to the issue of the war industry in Catalonia, the workers of the CNT created over 200 munitions factories in the early weeks of the war. De Santillan's figures about output may not be comprehensive.

Exactly, why does Landis cite Santillan so much throughout his book? Santillan was unreliable on his anarchist principles from the start (well he tried to get Durruti and Ascaso's 'nosotros' group expelled from the FAI!) and you're right, his figures don't seem to add up. I guess this is unsurprising from Landis though, as he is a biased author - you can see he thoroughly backs the popular front from the start of his book.

Ismail

27th November 2009, 07:29

You're attempting to evade my argument by employing Tu quoque. We're not discussing whether anarchists disarmed the POUM, nor am I making a defence of it. We're talking about the PCE/PSOE disarming the workers militias, smashing the collectives thus weakening the Aragon front and allowing Franco to win.I have not evaded any of your arguments. I have responded to each one.

If I was to accept that there was a weapons shortage, how does this relate to the wider discussion about the conduct of the Stalinist government?Probably because you said this:

There were plenty of arms, this is just a bear-faced lie!
The PCE and the PSOE were in an alliance. As far as I'm concerned they're one and the same thing. But in any case, whether Prieto gave the order or not is irrelevant, the motivation was to smash the working class and consolidate state power.It is relevant in that Prieto was War Minister and that Líster disobeying orders would have spelled a potential end to the PCE-PSOE alliance (and to treat them as "one and the same thing" is obvious simplistics), but this then brings us to...

If Lister or the PCE had such an issue with it, they could have broken off the alliance and refused. Your argument is weak if you think you can justify the actions of the PCE by blaming a bureaucrat in the PSOE. It's pathetic.Objectively speaking, the Popular Front would have been hurt less from crushing the Council than breaking the Popular Front. The PCE later got Prieto deposed anyway.

Both the Republicans and Communists wanted the Council gone (in the same way both wanted the Telefónica in Barcelona out of Anarchist hands), but the Communists were more concerned with unity and having an efficient army, of which the Council of Aragón was composed of militias, than with "DEATH TO THE WORKERS! RAWRRRGGHHH!" (since some cooperatives that were in all likelihood not based on coercion were eventually restored)

As far as the Aragón front goes, treating the fall of the Anarchists as an example of a decisive defeat for the Republic is a bit much. After all, after the Council was crushed, Col. Cordón and the Army did use the opportunity to launch their planned offensive (even if it failed pretty badly due to the well-equipped Franco army, it was still in the position to launch one). In the book Spain: 1808-1975 by R. Carr (p. 684) he notes:

Even less did the militia prove capable of offensive operations: in Aragon a series of ineffective amateurish C.N.T.-P.O.U.M. militia offensives failed to break a thinly held front while, in spite of the publicity that surrounded the contest, the militia at Toledo failed to take a fortress that had been almost blown up.And page 691:

This Aragon campaign was a vast operation, far removed from the relatively limited 'African' war of the north; it caught the Republican armies unprepared and exhausted after Teruel. Again and again sudden and inexplicable collapses made staffwork difficult and sometimes rendered tough resistance a waste of lives. Even so it was a difficult campaign for the Nationalists and was not made easier by friction both between the local commanders and between them and Franco. Aranda came to a halt against a narrow, well-prepared front and García Valiño reached the Sierra de Espadón fought out. The Germans once more prophesied a compromise peace.

In fact, with the increasing shortness of Russian deliveries and the steady supply to the Nationalists, the balance was tipped against the Republic. It was in the later stages of the Aragon campaign that the Nationalist air ace, Morato, complained he could not find a 'red' fighter to shoot down. It is against this mounting poverty that the last and greatest of the Republican surprise diversionary attacks must be seen. The battle of the Ebro was an attempt to halt the Nationalist advance on Valencia.I don't see how the Anarchist militias would have fared much better.

@syndicat:

He shows how the USSR cheated the Spanish Republic right and left. They often didn't send what was ordered but dumped a lot of used junk. Russia was right then in the process of re-equipping its armed forces. Thus the constant cheating of the Spanish Republic as well as the destruction of the value of the currency by looting the gold reserves had a great deal to do with why there ended up being shortages of weapons, aircraft and so on.The "used junk" was used to defend the Republic quite adequately and many Soviet advisers during the war would later become famous as WWII heroes. I'd say the dominance of the Nationalist navy on the high seas and the inability of Soviet materials to be sent through the French-Spanish border account for some of the arms shortages.

As Landis notes (citing Thomas, pp 636-643):

Mr. Hugh Thomas, utilizing Mr. D.C. Watt's analysis in the Slavonic & East European Review of June, 1960, in-re data collected by the German Military Attaché in Turkey during the war years, gives the following list of shipments and cargo: A total of 164 ships passed through the Bosporus as of January-March, 1938. These carried 242 aircrafts; 703 cannons; 27 AA guns; 731 tanks; 1,386 trucks; 69,000 tons of war materiel, and 29,125 tons of ammunition.Landis also cites from Líster's memoirs a note:

The Franco Admiral, Francisco Bastarreche, at a conference in Zaragoza in 1960 stated that, “The Nationalist Navy sank during the period of our war 53 merchant ships with a total of 129,000 tons; captured on the high seas were another 324 ships of some 484,000 tons. Twenty-four foreign ships were also seized, and as many as 1,000 detained on the high seas for examination and later released.”He also talks of the "thousands of tons" of material being held at the French-Spanish border. (p. 370)

@ls:

Exactly, why does Landis cite Santillan so much throughout his book?Landis wrote his book in 1972, so it was probably a matter of the availability of foreign Anarchist books coupled with the general belief that Santillán was a credible source.

I guess this is unsurprising from Landis though, as he is a biased authorTo be fair, he doesn't hide his unbiased nature. His book is basically "Fuck 95% of SCW history narratives, which are bourgeois and anarchist-tinted." Landis was an International Brigades member and Communist, so yeah.

Andropov

27th November 2009, 19:44

Was my answer not clear?
I am seeking a simple clarification so if you could please just dismount yourself there and answer my question.

What, precisely, am I distorting? I summarised the key points of this threads debates, you are more than welcome to go back through it and check.
You said this....

As far as I was aware this debate was initially whether Stalinist's should be treated differently to other tendencies or whether they should be restricted, thus turning the debate on whether Stalinism should be encouraged (as restricting them would indicate quite clearly that it shouldn't).
That is a complete distortion.
There was no debate on "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism being "encouraged".

Actually, I was referring to restriction. I think forcing members to post only in one specific forum rather than have free reign over the whole board is an act of discouragement. I'm not sure how else you can characterise it...
It is cearly stating that "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is not a legitimate tendency on Revleft.
As it is treated so hostile in comparison to other legitimate tendencys of the left, going to the extent of banning or restricting the tendency.

Can you get to your point quicker please...
Stop distorting my post with this needless pettyness.
What I said was this....

I dont call for the banning of Anarchists or Trots, does that mean I encourage those tendencys?
Of course not, but I recognise them as being legitimate tendencys within Revleft.
It is fairly linear logic that I know you can understand, your not ignorant TAT.
Merely that your claims that if you Ban/Restrict a tendency you are discouraging it and if you dont Ban/Restrict you are encouraging it.
My post clearly makes referance to that flawed arguement you used.

Then you have proven my basic point that Stalinist's are anti-working class.
Not at all, kind of shallow attempting to claim some phantom victory there.
I supported the disarming of the FAI/CNT, but that in no way equates to being anti-working class.

How can you have an indirect dialogue?
Come now TAT, your better than this.
You can have inderect dialogue by using proxys, much like the indirect dialogue that Thatcher was using with the chucks during the Hunger Strikes.
Now can you please answer my question, were the Anarchists having indierect dialogue with the USSR?

Then what was the "total war effort" if it was not arming militias defending a front in the civil war?
My point is that it was not a total war effort because resources, logistics and energy was being diverted into the Communes, simples.

How is smashing workers councils that control production and distribution, and then disarming workers militias, actual workers expression of control?
Ok lets go over this again then.
The PCE saw the need for a centralised and controlled base of power within the PCE to weather the inevitable onslaught of reactionarys.
Thus all Republican forces needed to come under the PCE umbrella so that forces could be centralised to repel the reactionary onslaught. Failure to do this would inveitable divide the Working Class in Spain and leave them vulnerable to Franco and Co and thus spell the end of the resistance. This would be detrimental to the Spanish Working Class so within the context of the situation the PCE were operating in a progressive material context which would help copper fasten actual worker expression in the wider context.

What you're arguing is that the working class taking control directly and organising for the benefit of themselves, in councils and collectives, is not working class expression of power.
No, I never said that.

I can't see how that's "rational" in any way?
Read the above.

Please explain to me how a centralised state mechanism controlling the working class is more of an expression of working class control than the workers controlling the means of production and distribution directly?
Your comparing a Total War effort to relative peace.
The two are not comparable.
The Republicans in Spain could not afford to divert resources and logistic to the restructuring of Economic Democracy.
That is why they needed the PCE's centralisation policy to help solidify the workers state and repel the reactionarys.

Yes, most probably.
Im glad we have established that.
So then we can dismiss this statement of yours....

While most people believe that arms were going to be used to defend the fronts against fascism, the PCE and Stalin were actually arming a state army and police force in order to crush the workers militias, first by forcibly disarming them and then using tanks to smash the collectives.
From this very statement it is the insinuation that the USSR was merely attempting to defeat the Anarchists in Spain.
But since you have conceded that these Guns were not exclusively used against the Anarchists but were also deployed against the Facists we can conclude that the USSR and the PCE were also committed to defeating Facism in Spain, all be it on their own terms.

Firstly, I've never seen any anarchist argue that liberal democracies are "more" progressive, so your question is based on a false assumption.
Not at all.
Ive lost count of all the Anarchist cheer leaders who hail the collpase of the USSR and the GDR etc as being progressive.
So since they deemed these Worker States collapse a step forward then we can conclude that Liberal Western Democracys are seen as more progressive than the likes of the USSR and the GDR according to Anarchist thought.

Anarchists don't think liberal democracies are progressive, that's precisely why we call for their destruction.
Dont distort my post.
I said more progressive.
There are different levels of progressiveness.

So to answer you question, they didn't "appeal" to them because they weren't prepared to negotiate with capitalists.
But yet they would accept weaponry from the USSR, labeled "state-capitalists by your tendency, a state that is deemed less progressive by Anarchists than Liberal Western Democracys?

But that's irrelevant anyway, no liberal democracy was going to arm an anarchist revolution.
Ohh im afraid its very much relevant TAT as it demonstrates the hyporicys within your Tendency.

It's hard to be effective when you've been killed. The PCE should have thought about that before they sent tanks in.
Not at all.
The Anarchist Militas were largely innefective because of not only lack of adequate military equipment but also because of the way in which the Anarchist Militas were organised. They operated disjointed and lacked any great centralisation to help mobilise them effectively. But that is not to say they did not fight courageously.

There was no need for a workers state. The Aragon and Catalonian collectives were examples of workers power outside of centralised political authority. There was no need to form a centralised government. The workers were doing it themselves and adequately defending themselves from Franco, until Lister murdered them all.
What is this wider context?
Thats lacking in any factual evidence.
The very fact that the CNT even set about the re-organisation of the Milita structure as it was so in-effective bares witness to this.

I'm afraid you can't deny historical fact. It is a fact that Lister smashed the Aragon collectives and disarmed the militias.
Indeed.

It is a fact that this weakened the Aragon front
The Aragon Front was weak anyway, without the PCE's intervention.
Its eventual demise was not because of the PCE's attempts to construct a Peoples Army and a centralised power but because of the inherent weaknesses in which the Anarchist Militas were organised.

and it is a fact that the Aragon offensive was the decisive victory that brought Franco to power.
Since your above "fact" has been dismissed this conclusion is redundant.

You can try and confound this discussion with your ideological line, but facts are facts. Read a book on the subject.
Im not attempting to confuse or distort anything, I am merely attempting to highlight the wider material context in which the Spanish Civil war existed. Just because I agree with your analysis and apply a Marxist Analysis does not mean "I have not read a book on the subject".

You keep saying that, but you've consistently ignored historical fact throughout this little discussion.
Not at all. I have not ignored any historical fact.

syndicat

27th November 2009, 20:46

it's completely silly to talk about worker management of production ("Economic Democracy" you call it) taking away resources from the military effort. The workers managed railways. Are railways not needed? The fact is, the PCE promoted a top-down nationalized economy in which a bureaucratic class would be created to manage workers. This is itself highly inefficient.

The issue in regard to the disagreement between the anarcho-syndicalists and the PCE over how to organize the armed forces wasn't over whether there should be coordination and unity. The CNT advocated in Sept 1936 for replacing the uncoordinated party and union militias with a unified people's militia with a unified command. But it would be run by the two labor federations, CNT and UGT. What the PCE wanted was its party in command. It's aim was to create a new kind of economy in Spain based on subordination and exploitation of the working class by a bureaucratic or techno-managerial class, created through nationalization of the economy, subordinating workers to managers.

The PCE's approach ended up being a disaster, contributing very greatly to the defeat of the revolution in the civil war. Their manipulation and sectarian policy of putting their people in charge and attacking the working class gains of the revolution spread disillustionment and demoralizaation throughout both the army and the rearguard.

The PCE favored mass over the ground assaults in a manner taken in mechanical fashion from French WW1 era army manuals...leading to disastrous loss of life and loss of equipment, from Brunete to Teruel to the battle of the Ebro (which destroyed the Republican army). The disastrous nature of PCE leadership of the armed forces is spelled out in detail in Antony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain."

The anarchists had proposed guerrila armies in the mountains to harass the fascist army...but this was veto'd because Stalin didn't want arms to go to anarchists. Harassing small scale attacks combined with a hard defense was, as Beevor points out, the best policy. One of the few major anti-fascist victories in the war was a defensive battle where fascist losses were three times the anti-fascist losses.

PaintItBlack

30th November 2009, 11:18

One of the few major anti-fascist victories in the war was a defensive battle where fascist losses were three times the anti-fascist losses.
Just out of interest, which battle was this? I might want to look into it further, to sate my historical curiosity. Not to go too far off topic.

Искра

30th November 2009, 11:47

Exactly, why does Landis cite Santillan so much throughout his book? Santillan was unreliable on his anarchist principles from the start (well he tried to get Durruti and Ascaso's 'nosotros' group expelled from the FAI!) and you're right, his figures don't seem to add up. I guess this is unsurprising from Landis though, as he is a biased author - you can see he thoroughly backs the popular front from the start of his book.
Excuse me but - WTF?

Stranger Than Paradise

30th November 2009, 16:50

Great post, this part in particular:

The CNT advocated in Sept 1936 for replacing the uncoordinated party and union militias with a unified people's militia with a unified command. But it would be run by the two labor federations, CNT and UGT. What the PCE wanted was its party in command. It's aim was to create a new kind of economy in Spain based on subordination and exploitation of the working class by a bureaucratic or techno-managerial class, created through nationalization of the economy, subordinating workers to managers.

I mentioned this point in another thread. So many of the Stalinists argument against the Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalists is the fact they were unwilling to co-operate and organise into a popular front, but that was simply not the case. They wanted a united front of workers. Preventing this being put into practice was the desire of the PCE to take power away from the working class.

Ismail

30th November 2009, 20:55

So basically turn the popular front against fascism into the "united front" of Communists and Anarchists against the Republic and the fascists on a simultaneous basis.

I think you guys overestimate the strength of the FAI and PCE. That being said, a bloodbath between Republicans and Leftists within the territory of the Republic sounds awesome if you want to ensure a Franco victory in 1936.

The CNT advocated in Sept 1936 for replacing the uncoordinated party and union militias with a unified people's militia with a unified command. But it would be run by the two labor federations, CNT and UGT.Tell us what happened to this "people's militia" proposal, then.

syndicat

30th November 2009, 23:26

The proposal for a unified people's militia and a workers government was vehemently opposed by the Soviet ambassador, Rosenberg. He told Largo Caballero, the prime minister and head of the UGT, that it would "destroy the international legitimacy of the Spanish republic." This makes the naive assumption that the "western democracies" would support a revolutionary labor army in a country where the capitalists had been expropriated by the working class. The Left Socialists...the dominant tendency in the PSOE and initially in control of the UGT...vacillated but eventually veto'd the CNT proposal.

This then created a serious problem for the revolutionaries in the CNT who had proposed it. Whatt to do? Apparently the FAI split on this question. Durruti and other revolutionaries proposed a strategy of the CNT taking power on its own in the regions where it was the majority...Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, Murcia. This was based on their popular and miilitary dominance in those areas. The UGT there would have been forced to go along. And the Left Socialists were dominant in the UGT in Valencia.

In fact the CNT unions in Aragon did carry out this suggestion in Aragon, backed up by Durruti's militia division. They held a congress of the communities of eastern Aragaon (population about 450,000) and elected a Regional Defense Council...made up of CNT members. It was a workers government in that region.

But in Catalonia apparently a sizeable section of the FAI wavered, and judged Durruti's proposal too risky, and thus opted to join the Popular Front government. This was the direction that had already been advocated by the treintista minority in the CNT from the beginning.

I think that the UGT in Catalonia and Valencia and Murcia would have been forced to go along, and would have joined the proposed Defense Councils...as they eventually did in Aragon. And I think Largo Caballero would have been forced to go along at that point.

Os Cangaceiros

1st December 2009, 04:48

Just out of interest, which battle was this? I might want to look into it further, to sate my historical curiosity. Not to go too far off topic.

I believe that he was referring to one of the skirmishes along the XYZ Line.

syndicat

1st December 2009, 05:04

pastradamus

1st December 2009, 11:25

pastradamus

1st December 2009, 11:36

Yes exactly. It's the battle military historians call "The Defense of the XYZ Line."

Another general failing in the civil war was failure to make adequate use of the anti-fascist navy, due mainly to the fear of provoking the British and French imperialists. This was a real mistake as can be seen from the fact that in the only actual naval battle of the civil war, off Majorca, the anti-fascist sailors were totally victorious, using torpedos to sink a fascist destroyer and heavy cruiser, with over 700 men going down on the heavy cruiser including an admiral of the fascist navy.

Indeed,One must also not forget the defense of GuadalaJara.

But on this Issue of the Navy, though I agree with your point. I must say that Franco was fully aware of this factor playing a part. So answers came from the Italian Navy in one form, but in quite another,and In my opinion one of the most important elements of the war - Fascist Air Superiority. Franco was no fool. He knew he had to cope with this threat somehow. Another Interesting thing I heard lately was the creation at the time of the Basque Navy. Im wondering does anyone here know a bit more on that?

ComradeOm

1st December 2009, 13:42

The PCE favored mass over the ground assaults in a manner taken in mechanical fashion from French WW1 era army manuals...leading to disastrous loss of life and loss of equipment, from Brunete to Teruel to the battle of the Ebro (which destroyed the Republican army). The disastrous nature of PCE leadership of the armed forces is spelled out in detail in Antony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain."Beevor also documents the complete failure of the militias to stem the rebel advance (or often even hold the field) during the summer and autumn of 1936. Its one of the irony of Spain that the poor performance of the Popular Army only looks good when compared to the even worse showing of the militia system that it replaced. I've made a number of posts on the topic in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/homage-catalonia-t68651/index.html?t=68651)

syndicat

1st December 2009, 18:44

You're talking about the ad hoc militias that were confronted by the advance of the Army of Africa from the airfield in Seville where they were unloaded. These were untrained ad hoc worker formations.

This is not the same as the militias that advanced into Aragon in the summer of 1936. Those better armed and more organized militias made the biggest gains of the civil war. Moreover, your counterposing the untrained and poorly armed and poorly coordinated initial militias with the hierarchical "Popular Army" is a false choice fallacy. The CNT proposed in summer of 1936 the formation of well trained and unified people's militia. This was the real alternative to the hierarchical army proposed by the Communists.

ComradeOm

2nd December 2009, 13:37

You're talking about the ad hoc militias that were confronted by the advance of the Army of Africa from the airfield in Seville where they were unloaded. These were untrained ad hoc worker formationsAnd they proved completely incapable of holding the field against a professional formation. I make the point in that thread that many of these flaws are inherent in the militia model itself

This is not the same as the militias that advanced into Aragon in the summer of 1936. Those better armed and more organized militias made the biggest gains of the civil warAgainst what opposition?

Moreover, your counterposing the untrained and poorly armed and poorly coordinated initial militias with the hierarchical "Popular Army" is a false choice fallacy. The CNT proposed in summer of 1936 the formation of well trained and unified people's militia. This was the real alternative to the hierarchical army proposed by the Communists.If you are intending to damn the Popular Army's performance then its reasonable to compare it to the model previously tested, or contemporary professional armies, and not some hypothetical formation that never existed

Devrim

3rd December 2009, 08:30

Yeah I agree. One must simply look at the history of it. People sometimes see the CNT-FAI as being one large organisation when this is simply not true. The CNT - at its height in 1934 had 1.5 MILLION members. A huge statistic. Its idiotic to believe that all its members were anarchists. Many POUM members and PCE members were also CNT union members.

I think that you are wrong here. CNT membership as far as I am aware peaked in 1937. This graph gives an overview:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Cnt_afiliats.png
Of course part of the reason for this increase is that union membership was made obligatory for all workers in the republican zone.

Devrim

Agnapostate

3rd December 2009, 08:50

The Aragón front did receive arms (as much as it could within the limits of "Does Aragón deserve some more precious guns?"), but it was also seen as an inactive front, as Orwell noted, and it isn't like there was much in the way of available Soviet arms, and the ability to actually get them into Spain was an epic task in of itself. Describe to me the allegedly betrayed arms agreement.

We've all discussed this at length before, but I usually note that David Cattell's Communism and the Spanish Civil War is a commendable source when it comes to exposing the nature of the Stalinist sabotage of the socialist effort by means of under-provision:

In response to Russian aid to Catalonia and the Aragon front there is more evidence of political control. Catalonia was dominated largely by the Anarchists and, unlike Largo Caballero and the Socialists, the Anarchists were not willing to follow the Communist lead and forget the revolution until the war had been won, even though they had agreed to participate in the government and to organize a centralized command. They resisted particularly efforts to turn their private army into a regular army. Consequently, the Communists decided to use the force of their equipment to bring them around. Walter Krivitksy reports that at the very beginning:

...I received strict instructions from Moscow not to permit the boat to deliver the cargo in Barcelona. Under no circumstances were those planes to pass through Catalonia, which had its own government, very much like that of a sovereign state. This Catalonian government was dominated by revolutionists of anti-Stalinist persuasion. They were not trusted by Moscow, although they were then desperately holding one of the most vital sectors of the Loyalist front against fierce attacks from Franco's army.

[...]

Soviet aid was used to discriminate against the revolutionaries in Catalonia in several ways. There is good circumstantial evidence that the Soviet Union set these conditions for aiding Catalonia: that the dissident Communist POUM should not be allowed to participate any longer in the Catalonia Generalitat, and that the Catalonian government must submit to the over-all program set down by the central government. Aid to Catalonia began in December, and immediately the POUM representatives were dropped from the Council, the Catalonian militias submitted to the long process of being organized into a regular army, and the central government began gradually to assume authority over industry in Catalonia...Evidence in respect to the Communist refusal of material for the Aragon front is much more clear. When the Madrid front had ben secured by Soviet material aid against the first assaults, nothing was done to help the important Aragon front which was manned primarily by the militias of the POUM and the CNT. Failure to support this front is impossible to explain. It clearly shows the political motive for the distribution of supplies. Katia Landau states the case:

No sacrifice, they say, must be held back for the saving of Madrid. It is not only in Madrid, but also in the Aragon front that arms are needed. At the Aragon front there are the militias of the C.N.T.-F.A.I. and the P.O.U.M. who wait. With the modern Russian arms, they would go on in the conquest of Saragossa, which would thus contribute in the most effective and definite way to forestall the encirclement of Madrid [and hinder Franco's offensive against Bilbao.] And the arms, at this time, are not a far-off dream; they are there in the port of Cartagena. But at the Aragon front the Anarchist militia and that of the P.O.U.M wait in vain; and slowly they realize the cruel truth; the Russian arms are political arms, directed against the revolutionary elements of the C.N.T., of the F.A.I. and the P.O.U.M.

[...]

There is no doubt from the evidence that strategically this refusal of aid for an Aragon offensive was a mistake of serious consequences...it can be stated from the evidence reviewed above that the Communists made extensive political use of their aid in order to undermine their political opponents, the POUM and the Anarchists.

I've never attempted to illustrate this merely for the sake of anarchist partisanship; I've always acknowledged that the libertarian Marxists among the POUM were worthy allies of the anarchists, and that even the UGT did admittedly play a notable role in the collectivization efforts, though they were still of course CNT-directed. It's simply that modern Leninists (pro-Stalin or not) often cite the "failure" of the social revolution as an example of the deficiencies of anarchism while not acknowledging the obvious reality that it was the treasonous actions of their closest ideological fellows involved in the civil war that undermined efforts.

The guts of the arguement is if "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate tendency of the left.
Now this debate has boiled down to why the USSR back tracked on agreements with Anarchists in Spain.
Such as why arms shipments and the like were renegaded upon.
But the very inferance that Anarchists here expected the USSR to provide Spanish Anarchists with weaponry even though it was led by Marxist-Leninists surely demonstrates that Anarchists here recognise that the USSR was some legitimate branch of Leftist ideology.
Surely this proves our point that "Stalinism" or Marxist-Leninism is a legitimate branch of Leftist ideology.
If the USSR was indeed crypto-facist, state capitalst, anti-worker buerocratic bourgeois then why would Anarchists appeal to aid from the USSR?
Why not appeal to the Liberal Western Democracys which Anarchists here deem as more progressive than the USSR?
Surely a paradox?

Perhaps it's a matter of realizing that military alliance does not reflect an intent to adopt all of the respective traits and attributes of allies and financial backers...unless you're of the opinion that the Soviet Union's alliance with liberal western democracies during the Second World War demonstrated an intent to adopt their capitalism.

syndicat

3rd December 2009, 21:00

In re CNT members, Devrim's statistic of 400,000 members in 1936 probably refers to the membership in Catalonia, not all of Spain. According to government statistics, CNT had 1.65 million members in spring of 1936 before the onset of civil war, and UGT had 1.45 million members. Later CNT membership exceeded 2 million despite the loss of many anarchist strongholds to the fascists...Galicia, Zaragoza, Rioja, most of western Andalucia. Altho workers were required to belong to either CNT or UGT after August 1936, this does not explain relative strength of CNT to UGT.

syndicat

3rd December 2009, 21:09

Moreover, your counterposing the untrained and poorly armed and poorly coordinated initial militias with the hierarchical "Popular Army" is a false choice fallacy. The CNT proposed in summer of 1936 the formation of well trained and unified people's militia. This was the real alternative to the hierarchical army proposed by the Communists.

If you are intending to damn the Popular Army's performance then its reasonable to compare it to the model previously tested, or contemporary professional armies, and not some hypothetical formation that never existed

Why? It is relevant to compare them to the REALLY PROPOSED alternative. There was in fact a political struggle over what form the armed forces should take and how they should be controlled. The PCE proposed a top-down conventional army, in which their party would gain dominance over the commissars and officer corps, as well as the police and secret political police (SIM).

If the problem of the actual militias was lack of coordination, due to separation into various party and union forces, then the obvious solution is a unfied militia... this is what the CNT proposed. You're just trying to evade discussing the real political struggle and real alternatives.

It was also a question of who should be in control. The CNT proposed that the organized working class...the UGT and CNT unions jointly...be in control of the government and the armed forces. The PCE wanted a hierarchical statist structure that the working class couldn't control. That is why it could later be used against the working class....as in the May 1937 events and the crushing of the workers government in Aragon and breaking up of or statist nationalization of worker managed farming and industries.

Devrim

3rd December 2009, 22:07

In re CNT members, Devrim's statistic of 400,000 members in 1936 probably refers to the membership in Catalonia, not all of Spain. According to government statistics, CNT had 1.65 million members in spring of 1936 before the onset of civil war,

It could be. The numbers did seem low to me, but I used it because it does show the trend. I was under the impression that they had about 900,000 members immediatly prior to the war.

Altho workers were required to belong to either CNT or UGT after August 1936, this does not explain relative strength of CNT to UGT.

I presume the UGT also grew massively.

Devrim

ComradeOm

4th December 2009, 09:05

If the problem of the actual militias was lack of coordination, due to separation into various party and union forces, then the obvious solution is a unfied militia... this is what the CNT proposed. You're just trying to evade discussing the real political struggle and real alternativesNo, I'm arguing, as I did in the previous thread, that a lack of coordination and training - when compared to a professional force - is an inherent weakness of militia formations. The political dimension is completely tangential to this judgement

As for "evasion", I again ask you just what opposition was faced by the Aragon militias that made the "biggest gains of the civil war"?

syndicat

4th December 2009, 18:08

You can assert whatever you like, but that's not an argument. An argument requires that you provide reasons. The proposed unified people's militia would be a coordinated and trained force. The issue isn't "professionalism" or lack of it if this means training. The issue is popular control. The CNT's proposal was for an armed force under the control of organized working class.

ComradeOm

8th December 2009, 10:45

I've linked to my reasoning in a previous post. I could do a cut and paste exercise to transfer the arguments here OR you could read them there. One point that I make very clear in that thread is that I am a firm believer in assessing military formations on the basis of their military performance. If a model is politically acceptable (such as "popular control") but military inefficient then it remains, nonetheless, unfit for purpose

The issue isn't "professionalism" or lack of it if this means trainingOf course its professionalism. If you have a body of full time soldiers then you have a professional military force. This is not the same as a workers' militia; the latter being a unit comprised of non-professional persons (ie, workers). The amount of training that could be provided to a workers' militia is, by definition, less than that afforded to a professional unit

And I once again ask what opposition the just what opposition was faced by the Aragon militias that made the "biggest gains of the civil war"?

syndicat

8th December 2009, 17:55

First of all, the worker militias on the Aragon front were not part time.

Secondly, the reason the uncoordinated party militias happened was not because of the anarcho-syndicalists but because the Marxist and Republican parties each demanded to have their own militias. The weaknesses of the militia were due to:

1. lack of training
2. lack of arms, especially planes, tanks, artillery, machine guns
3. lack of coordination

The CNT's proposed solution to this was a unified People's Militia. This militia would have had training through the training academy that the CNT proposed setting up. It would have been unified and controlled through the proposed National Defense Council...a proletarian government controlled by the two labor federations.

How did this differ from the Communist proposal that was implemented? In the following ways:

1. The PCE wanted its party to have top-down and sole control over the armed forces. It obtained this by gaining control over appointment of officers, over the training academy, the commissariat (which appointed political commissars to each unit), and by setting up a rigid control from above as in any hierarchical army.

2. In the CNT proposal, rank and file members of the militia would elect half the delegates to the administrative committees of sections of the armed forces, the other half would be elected by the unions. This would mean the rank and file soldiers would have at least some say.

The Communists program for the army proved to be a failure. As Antony Beevor explains in detail in "The Battle for Spain," the Communists used outdated French manuals from World War 1 which called for setpiece battles involved large scale infantry assaults over open ground. These were for propaganda reasons...not because of military success. So much for your so-called "professionalism." They resulted in huge losses of life and arms at failed battles like Brunete, Teruel and the Ebro. These battles ultimately destroyed the Republican army.

Having the rank and file militia members have some say on the administrative committees would act as a check on officers. Control by the unions would have meant that no one party would have control over the armed forces. As it is, the Communist Party did things like demote good officers who refused to join the PCE and promoted ciphers who were willing to kowtow to the PCE. This sectarian practice was aimed at achieving Communist hegemony and had the effect of greatly demoralizing the army. The huge losses at the useless battles promoted by the "professional" Communist officers for propaganda reasons were another demoralizing factor. Let's face facts: It was the Communists who are responsible for the defeat.

In regard to the Aragon front, the CNT had proposed in Sept 1936 a unified command of the militia and it was the Communists who refused....because the anarcho-syndicalists were dominant on that front. The forces that were encountered on that front were mainly General Mola's troops, including the requetes volunteers. But in the defense of Madrid, the militias faced the Army of Africa but were still able to hold the city.

Much of the so-called "professionalism" advocated by the Communists involved marching in formation, saluting, and that kind of thing. Maybe that's impressive in city marches, but it's not of much value in actual combat.